alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 20821.

#### Joe Cuchiaro *v.*The Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County, Colorado, Defendants in Error, and Juanda T. Neece and Marion W. Neece, Amici Curiae.

(402 P.2d 368)

Decided May 24, 1965.

*291Murphy, Morris & Hudson, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendants in error.

Donald E. La Mora, for amici curiae, Juanda T. Neece and Marion W. Neece.

*In Department.*

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Frantz.

Cuchiaro applied to the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County, Colorado, for a license to sell packaged, sealed liquor from premises to be constructed upon a then vacant lot. After hearing, his application was granted. Complaint was filed in the district court, where, after review of the proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners, the court entered judgment reversing the Board. This judgment is attacked here by writ of error.

Cuchiaro contends that the trial court erred in five respects. Since our decision must turn on the absence of a structure on the premises in which it was contemplated the business would be conducted, it becomes unnecessary to consider other asserted errors.

The applicant for the license in question advances the following argument as warranting the issuance of the license:

“It has been a universal policy for an applicant to *292apply before the local board for approval of his application and submit plans for the establishment.

“Immediately upon approval by the local board, the applicant commences construction of his improvement to comply with the State inspection; the State Licensing Authority will not issue a license until the premises are inspected and approved.”

This Court had before it the question presented by this writ of error in *Smith v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson,*155 Colo. 175, 394 P.2d 840, where we held that C.R.S. ’53, 75-2-7, required that there must be an existing building, plant, or property subject to inspection before such a license could be issued. That holding is applicable to this case, since the controversy arose prior to the Session of the Forty-fourth General Assembly, which amended C.R.S. ’53, 75-2-7, by enacting C.R.S. 1963, 75-2-40 (3), allowing the applicant to submit plans, specifications, and an architect’s drawing of the proposed licensed premises.

Regarding the administrative policy upon which Cuchiaro relies, we need only point to *Beery v. American Liberty Ins. Co.,*150 Colo. 499, 375 P.2d 93, in which we disapproved an administrative policy that was not in accord with the law.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Mr. Justice. McWilliams and Mr. Justice Schauer concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4279 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4279

    To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disclose certain 
     information to State controlled substance monitoring programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2015

 Mrs. Walorski (for herself and Mrs. Brooks of Indiana) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disclose certain 
     information to State controlled substance monitoring programs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MANDATORY DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN VETERAN INFORMATION TO STATE 
              CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE MONITORING PROGRAMS.

    Section 5701(l) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''.
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 81

 84

 85

 70

 91

 91

 84

 95

 88

 86

 86

 90

 93

 81

 93

 74

 81

 81

 71

 83

 75

 66

 80

 73

 64

 63

 0

 86

 91

 92

 65

 65

 65

 66

 67

 73

 71

 73

 74

 69

 70

 74

 71

 68

 68

 68

 67

 66

 67

 64

 59

 62

 62

 62

 59

 59

 0

 80

 87

 65

 68

 71

 68

 67

 71

 76

 75

 76

 77

 73

 73

 77

 77

 71

 71

 71

 69

 68

 68

 69

 64

 64

 66

 65

 61

 60

 0

 85

 89

 81

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 1, 2008

HIGH LOW MEAN

 67.8

 67.9

 68.1

 68.0

 69.1

 69.8

 69.5

 70.8

 72.2

 72.2

 71.4

 72.5

 73.8

 73.3

 73.6

 73.5

 73.3

 73.6

 74.1

 74.5

 73.5

 73.2

 71.9

 70.7

 70.3

 76.9

 89.0

 84.0

 84.7

 82.1

 63.7

 63.8

 64.4

 64.3

 64.1

 65.4

 65.4

 65.9

 67.1

 68.7

 66.7

 67.3

 68.6

 69.0

 68.8

 68.6

 68.5

 69.0

 68.9

 69.9

 71.3

 69.0

 67.9

 67.9

 66.4

 66.6

 68.4

 72.9

 71.6

 69.9

 65.7

 65.8

 66.2

 66.1

 66.4

 67.4

 67.3

 68.3

 69.6

 70.4

 69.1

 69.8

 71.1

 71.2

 71.2

 71.2

 70.9

 71.3

 71.5

 72.2

 72.5

 71.1

 70.0

 69.5

 68.4

 69.1

 78.6

 78.8

 77.9

 74.0

HIGH LOW MEAN

 9.0

 9.1

 9.0

 9.0

 9.0

 8.8

 9.0

 8.7

 8.5

 8.4

 8.6

 8.5

 9.0

 8.4

 8.4

 8.4

 8.5

 8.4

 8.4

 8.2

 8.1

 8.5

 9.1

 8.9

 9.2

 9.2

 9.0

 0.0

 0.0

 9.1

 8.7

 8.7

 8.7

 8.5

 8.5

 8.4

 8.4

 8.3

 7.8

 8.0

 8.0

 8.2

 8.0

 8.0

 8.0

 8.0

 8.0

 8.0

 7.8

 7.8

 7.6

 7.8

 8.2

 8.4

 8.7

 7.6

 8.1

 0.0

 0.0

 8.7

 8.9

 8.9

 8.9

 8.8

 8.8

 8.6

 8.6

 8.5

 8.3

 8.2

 8.4

 8.3

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.1

 8.0

 7.9

 8.2

 8.5

 8.6

 8.9

 8.8

 8.6

 0.0

 0.0

 8.9

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
NO. 07-08 -046 8-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B FEB RU ARY27, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ BAR BARA EV ON NE H ILL, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 2 DIS T RI CTCOU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; ND NO. B17 507 -080 1; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Anders Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Bar bara Evo n n e H i l l ( a p p e l l a n t ) a p p e a l s h e r c o n v i ct i o n fo r

p o s s e s s i o n o f a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance w it hin 1,000 feet of a school , enhanced. Pu nis hment was ass ess ed by the jur y at si xty y ears in the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion
. Appel lan t t imel y

fil ed her noti ce of appeal
.See A n d e r s v . C a lifo r

n ia , 38 6 U
. S
. 73 8, 74 4-4 5, 87 S
. C t
. 13 96 , 18 L. E d.2d 49 3 (19 67 ). 1 C ounsel shal l , wi t hi n f i v e da y s aft ert hi s opi ni on i s han ded down, send hi s cl i enta copyoft he o pi ni on 2 and j udgm ent , al ong wi t h no t i f i cat i on of appel l ant ’ s r i ghtt o f i l e a pr o se p e ti ti o n fo r d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w . See T ex. R
. App. P. 48. 4. 2 Appel lan t’ s a ppoi nted couns el has filed a mot io n to w it hdraw , t og ether w it h an Anders br ief, w herein he c erti fies that, aft e r d ilig entl y se archi ng the re cord, he has 1 conc lud ed th at ap pel lan t’ s a ppeal i s w it hout meri t. Along w it h his br ief, he has fil ed a copy of a letter sen t to appe llant informin g her of coun sel’s belief

thatthere was no rev ersible error a nd of

a ppe llant’s rig ht to ap pea l pr o s e. By letter da ted Janu ary16, 20 09, this court noti fied appe ll ant o f her ri g ht to fil e her ow n br ief or

respon se by

F ebr uar y 17, 2009, if sh e w is hed t o do so. To dat e, ap pel lan t hasnot filed a respon se. In co mp l i an ce w ith the principles en uncia ted in Ande rs, appel lat e c ounse l dis cus sed one pos si ble g ro und for appeal , that bei ng the suffici ency of t he ev ide nce to suppo rtg uil t. Howev er , app ell a te co unsel , after rev iew ing the ev ide nce present ed attr ial , found t he e vid e n c e t o b e b o t h le ga ll y a n d fa c t u a l l ysu f f ic ie n t
. T h e re a f

t e r, we co n d u ct e d o u r o wn re v iew of the record to ass ess the acc uracy of appel lat e c ounse l’ s c oncl usi ons and t o uncover anyerror , rev ersi ble or othe rw is e, pu rs uant to Staf for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) , and co ncl uded t he s ame. Acc ordin g ly , t he moti on to w it hdraw i s g ra nted and t he j udg ment i s a ff ir med. 2
Br ian Qui nn C hie f Just ic e Do not p ubl is h.
### §614. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10418(a)(19), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 508

Section, acts Mar. 4, 1907, ch. 2907, title I, §14, formerly 12th par., 34 Stat. 1263; renumbered §14 and amended Pub. L. 90–201, §§1, 3(b), 12(a), Dec. 15, 1967, 81 Stat. 584, 588, 592, prohibited clearance to vessel carrying animals for export without inspector's certificate. Section was formerly classified to section 82 of this title.
EXHIBIT 32.2



             CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of First
Keystone Corporation (the "Corporation") for the period ended June
30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, David R. Saracino, Treasurer and CFO, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

    1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
        all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of the Corporation as of and for the period
        covered by the Report.





                                  /s/ David R. Saracino
                                  David R. Saracino
                                  Treasurer and CFO



August 5, 2005


                                29
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         625,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,400
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      14,287,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,765,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,957,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,194,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,957,900
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,647,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,002,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (11,800)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                87,800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                600,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            600,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   600,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    19.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                     1000
<CURRENCY>                                               U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                            MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                              OCT-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                     1
<CASH>                                                          4,835
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   8,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                    12,588
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               27,148
<PP&E>                                                        126,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 27,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                128,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          42,258
<BONDS>                                                        52,817
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                           58
<OTHER-SE>                                                     29,247
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  128,297
<SALES>                                                        26,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               49,730
<CGS>                                                          24,349
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  42,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               24,474
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              3,922
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 5,468
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    2,153
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             3,315
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    3,315
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     .56
        

</TABLE>
#### § 30.608 How does the United States calculate the amount to which it is subrogated?

The subrogated amount of a specific claim consists of the total money paid by OWCP from the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Fund with respect to that claim to or on behalf of a covered Part B employee, a covered Part E employee or an eligible surviving beneficiary, less charges for any medical file review (*i.e.*, the physician did not examine the employee) done at the request of OWCP. Charges for medical examinations also may be subtracted if the covered Part B employee, covered Part E employee or an eligible surviving beneficiary establishes that the examinations were required to be made available to the covered Part B employee or covered Part E employee under a statute other than EEOICPA.
#### Jean B. Colombet, Appellant, v. The Touraine Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present— Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Scott and Dowling JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Gerardo CHACON-AVITIA, also known as Ramon Gerardo Chacon-Avita, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51290.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ramon Gerardo Chacon-Avitia raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 2,263

 2,389

 2,620

 2,781

 2,735

 2,795

 3,396

 3,559

 3,113

 2,858

 2,855

 2,229

 2,380

 2,301

 2,508

 3,078

 3,878

 4,023

 3,319

 2,913

 4,477

 4,926

 4,709

 4,472

 4,103

 3,187

 2,741

 2,672

 2,867

 3,059

 3,320

 959

 974

 963

 971

 1,002

 974

 960

 900

 813

 730

 712

 726

 787

 851

 858

 924

 989

 1,088

 1,147

 1,150

 1,138

 1,188

 1,176

 1,278

 1,282

 887

 950

 1,053

 1,073

 1,126

 1,121

 1,403

 1,442

 1,513

 1,533

 1,496

 1,544

 1,794

 1,890

 1,699

 1,586

 1,377

 1,275

 1,321

 1,340

 1,356

 1,569

 1,835

 1,980

 1,684

 1,727

 2,233

 2,470

 2,467

 2,352

 2,219

 1,745

 1,684

 1,643

 1,632

 1,683

 1,753

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 8, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY 

AVG

MEAN

 18,937

 19,083

 19,309

 19,559

 19,689

 19,914

 20,370

 20,818

 21,088

 21,333

 21,399

 21,350

 21,311

 21,213

 21,166

 21,293

 21,615

 22,062

 22,250

 22,433

 22,872

 23,452

 24,220

 24,986

 25,828

 26,298

 26,661

 26,964

 27,240

 27,354

 27,272

 1,353

 1,363

 1,379

 1,397

 1,406

 1,422

 1,455

 1,487

 1,506

 1,524

 1,529

 1,525

 1,522

 1,515

 1,512

 1,521

 1,544

 1,576

 1,589

 1,602

 1,634

 1,675

 1,730

 1,785

 1,845

 1,878

 1,904

 1,926

 1,946

 1,954

 1,948

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

JERSEY POINT TOP ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
#### § 234.40 General.

The residual lump-sum (RLS) is the means by which railroad employees and their survivors are guaranteed to receive at least as much in benefits as the employee paid in railroad retirement taxes during the years 1937 through 1974. An RLS payment can be made only if it appears that no other benefits based at least in part on railroad service will be payable under either the Railroad Retirement Act or Social Security Act in the future. The residual is reduced for any retirement benefits that were paid on the basis of the employee's railroad service, and for any survivor benefits based on the employee's earnings already paid by either the Board or the Social Security Administration. A widow(er) or dependent parent can, before attaining age 60, elect to waive future rights to monthly benefits based on the employee's railroad service in order to receive the RLS.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): June 29, 2011
 DIGITILITI, INC.
  DELAWARE

000-53235

26-1408538(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)

(Commission File Number)

(IRS Employer Identification No.)
 266 EAST 7TH STREET, 4TH FLOOR
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA

55101(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)
 (651) 925-3200
 
 (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)
  o

Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o

Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o

Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o

Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Section 1  Registrants Business and Operations
 Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
       Section 3  Securities and Trading Markets
 Item 3.02 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities




---



##### 



Section 5  Corporate Governance and Management
 Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain
Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
 (b)
  (c) and (d)
   (d)




---



##### 








---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  DIGITILITI, INC.Date: July 6, 2011By:
    
    /s/ Jack ScheetzName:
    
    Jack ScheetzTitle:
    
    Interim Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 21889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9371]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. RR11-1-000; Docket No. RR11-1-001]


Nebraska Public Power District; Southwest Power Pool Regional 
Entity; Notice of Extension of Time

    On April 8, 2011, the Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO) filed 
a motion for an extension of time to file comments in connection with 
the March 18, 2011 Petition of Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD 
Petition) in Docket No RR11-1-000. In its motion, MRO notes that on 
March 21, 2010 the Commission issued a formal notice of the NPPD 
Petition establishing a comment deadline of April 18, 2011. MRO also 
notes that the Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity filed a petition 
(SPP RE Petition) on March 31, 2010 in Docket No. RR11-1-001 and that 
the Commission issued a formal notice of the SPP RE Petition 
establishing a comment deadline on April 21, 2011, which is three days 
after responses are due to the NPPD Petition. MRO states that the NPPD 
Petition and the SPP RE Petition stem from a common set of facts, and 
SPP RE's Petition raises issues that are very similar to those in the 
NPPD Petition. MRO also states that the current three day difference 
between the comment deadlines for each petition creates the potential 
for procedural unfairness and prejudice to MRO, as well as any other 
prospective participant who may oppose both petitions.
    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that an extension of 
time for filing motions to intervene and comments concerning the NPPD 
Petition is granted to and including April 21, 2011.

    Dated: April 13, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9371 Filed 4-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P